The Eden Narrative: A Literary and Religio-Historical Study of Genesis 2–3 9781575065861

Citation preview

The Eden Narrative

The Eden Narrative A Literary and Religio-historical Study of Genesis 2–3

Tryggve N. D. Mettinger

Winona Lake, Indiana Eisenbrauns 2007

ç Copyright 2007 by Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. www.eisenbrauns.com

The preparation of the manuscript for this book was aided by a grant from the Royal Academy of Letters, History and Antiquities, Stockholm. Scripture quotations are taken from either the Revised Standard Version of the Bible, Apocrypha, copyright 1957; The Third and Fourth Books of the Maccabees and Psalm 151, copyright 1977 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved. or the New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright 1989, Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Cataloging in Publication Data Mettinger, Tryggve N. D. The Eden narrative : a literary and religio-historical study of Genesis 2–3 / Tryggve N. D. Mettinger. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and indexes. ISBN-13: 978-1-57506-141-2 (hardback : alk. paper) 1. Eden. 2. Bible. O.T. Genesis II, 4–III, 24—Criticism, interpretation, etc. I. Title. BS1237.M48 2007 222u.1106—dc22 2007037248

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984.†‰

To Solvi my “favorite wife” who is more than an echo of Eden to me

Contents Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ix

Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

xi

Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1. The Agenda of the Present Study 1 1.2. One or Two Trees? A Survey of Opinions 5

1

2. A Narratological Analysis of the Eden Narrative . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 2.1. Unifying Elements 13 2.2. Time and Location 14 2.3. Scenes and Plot 16 1. Scenes 16 2. “Plot Segments” 18 3. The Overall Plot 21 2.4. Characters 29 2.5. Focalization (Point of View) and Voice 32 2.6. Narrator and Characters: Omniscience and Restricted Knowledge 34 Summary and Conclusions 41 3. The Theme of the Eden Narrative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 3.1. “Theme” in Literary Theory 42 3.2. The Theme of the Eden Narrative 47 1. Death versus Immortality 47 2. The Test of Obedience: Disobedience and Its Consequences 49 3. Theodicy 58 4. The Two Trees 60 Summary and Conclusions 63 4. The Genre and Function of the Eden Narrative . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 4.1. The Genre of the Eden Narrative 66 1. The Genre: Myth 66 2. A Sociofunctionalist Interpretation of the Eden Narrative 70 4.2. Excursus: Structuralist Approaches 74 4.3. The Nature of Genre and How Genre Works 76

vii

01-FM-Mettinger-Eden Page viii Friday, September 28, 2007 10:25 AM

viii

Contents

4.4. The Eden Narrative versus the Chaos Battle Drama of Creation Summary and Conclusions 83

80

5. Traces of a Tradition: The Adamic Myth in Ezekiel 28 . . . . . . . . 85 5.1. The Contents of the Adamic Myth 87 5.2. Wisdom and Immortality in the Adamic Myth 90 5.3. The Innovations of the Eden Poet (Genesis 2–3) 94 Summary and Conclusions 97 6. Wisdom and Immortality in Adapa and Gilgamesh . . . . . . . . . . 99 6.1. The Myth of Adapa and the South Wind 100 1. Adapa: Wisdom, the Gift of Ea 102 2. Adapa: Immortality Forfeited 104 3. Adapa and the Eden Narrative: A Comparison 107 6.2. The Gilgamesh Epic 109 1. Gilgamesh: Wisdom from the Antediluvian Age 112 2. Gilgamesh: The Quest for Immortality 116 7. Synthesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 7.1. The Two Main Traditions Alloyed 124 7.2. The Conceptual Framework 126 1. The Ontological Boundary 126 2. Wisdom 129 3. Immortality 130 4. Theodicy 132 7.3. Date and Literary Integrity 134 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 Indexes Index of Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Index of Scripture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Index of Other Ancient Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Index of Terms, Mainly Literary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

156 160 163 165

Acknowledgments I am grateful to Oxford University Press, Oxford, for permission to quote from Andrew R. George, The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic (2003); to SCM-Canterbury Press, London, and Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville, for permission to quote from Gerhard von Rad, Genesis: A Commentary (1961); and to Professor Lars-Håkan Svensson for permission to use his translation of Gunnar Ekelöf’s poem “Poetik.” The Bible translation I quote in this book is the New Revised Standard Version (nrsv), unless otherwise stated. I use normalized spellings without diacritics in ancient Near Eastern names (Uta-napishti, Gilgamesh, and so on), even when I quote from translations in which diacritics are used.

ix

Preface “About conditions in Paradise, opinion has been divided for millennia, owing to, among other things, the troublesome lack of eyewitnesses.” Anders Palm, Professor of Comparative Literature and my colleague at Lund, makes this irrefutable observation (Palm 2004: 15). Thus, the situation arouses one’s curiosity. The ancient Romans used to say habent sua fata libelli, which means “books have their fates.” And so does this book. It all began during a very rainy summer in Sweden a few years ago. My wife, Solvi, and I had moved to our summer house in the province of Småland, the district of lakes and forests. In my despondency over the weather, I decided to resort to some Akkadian reading and found the Gilgamesh Epic a suitable choice. Like Uta-napishti in his boat, I sat in my summer house hoping to reach land in a world with more pleasant weather. It so happened that before I embarked on Gilgamesh I had just finished a rereading of the myth Adapa and the South Wind. I found that the two protagonists, Adapa and Gilgamesh, were figures who were exceedingly wise, their wisdom ultimately deriving from the god Ea, but also persons who forfeited immortality by a narrow margin. The idea dawned on me that the biblical story of Eden is a text in which we find the same combination of knowledge and immortality, here symbolized by the two trees. Might the combination of motifs in the two Mesopotamian texts be able to shed light on the Eden Narrative? Back in my library in my home in Borgeby, outside Lund, I decided to look into the matter and see what biblical scholars made of the trees in Eden. When I found that ever since Karl Budde (1883) a number of scholars had contributed to a deforestation of Eden, running the tree of life through the chipper of classic source criticism—the tree of life being regarded as a late intruder in the text—the spirit of suspicion came upon me. I decided to determine for myself how many special trees sound exegetical ecology could tolerate in the Garden of Bliss and, above all, what the Eden Narrative is really about: what is (are) its theme(s)? The present book was born out of this curiosity. I felt a strong need to employ a consistent method—a method, moreover, that meets the needs of the material, a piece of verbal art that takes the shape of a narrative, which has become one of the most

xi

xii

Preface

precious pieces of world literature. Consequently, I found it natural to approach the Eden Narrative armed with the methods used by literary scholars. There appeared to be reasons to question the source-critical approach (Literarkritik) to the Eden Narrative. I must add that this does not mean that I question this approach in the study of other texts. My investigation proceeds as follows. After a brief survey of the relevant research and a statement explaining my agenda (chap. 1), I first undertake a narratological analysis (chap. 2). The text appears to make excellent sense on the assumption that both trees belong to it from beginning. A striking insight from my analysis is that the man and the woman do not share the knowledge possessed by the narrator at all. They are informed about the existence of one tree only. But this does not necessarily mean that we must eliminate the other tree from the text. The next chapter (chap. 3) discusses the theme of the narrative. I argue that the text is about a divine test, related to the passages about God’s testing of Israel, Abraham, and Job. The thesis of the Eden author is that obedience to the divine commandment leads to life, and disobedience to the forfeiture of the possibility of immortality. In important respects, the Eden Narrative repristinates significant elements of Deuteronomistic theology (the Law and obedience). Only in chap. 4 do I arrive at the question to which genre the narrative belongs. My conclusion here is that the narrative is a myth. Of the various methods of investigating myths (structuralist, semiotic, functionalist), I opt for functionalism, because I want to come to grips with the question of what the poet wanted to accomplish in his reader. This issue calls for a functionalist approach. The last two chapters are devoted to material prior to the work of the Eden Poet. Chapter 5 analyzes Ezekiel 28 with the aim of recovering the basic elements of an Adamic myth used by Ezekiel. It is thus a discussion of tradition history. On the assumption that this basic myth was known to the Eden Poet who produced the narrative that we now have in Genesis 2–3, I raise the question what the Eden Poet did with his material, looking at how he changed it, and finally focusing on the purpose of these changes. After this study of the biblical narrative, I proceed to a discussion of the prime ancient Near Eastern material, Adapa and Gilgamesh (chap. 6). In spite of considerable differences with regard to plot, I find in these narratives—one a myth and one an epic—a stable thematic marriage of wisdom and immortality, two concepts that are essential both to the oldest form of the Adamic myth as

Preface

xiii

known from Ezekiel 28 and to the Eden Narrative in Genesis. The book ends with a synthesis (chap. 7), in which I discuss some implications of my findings. To me this enterprise has been an invigorating experience. For many years, I have taken an interest in literary theory. The present project grew out of curiosity, and in the course of my explorations I learned a number of new things. I needed to apply perspectives and techniques I had never used before. This inspired me to take on a pedagogical task: I try to explain my various methodological steps, making it clear to my fellow students what it means to carry out a narratological analysis and what we may learn from the discussion of phenomena such as genre and theme among scholars of comparative literature. Every chapter finishes with a brief summary and a recapitulation of its conclusions. I have a confession to make. There are a plethora of works on the first chapters of Genesis. I decided from the outset that I was not going to spend the rest of my life on this project, however fascinating it may be, and thus there may be studies, even important ones, that I have overlooked. Should this be the case, I want to express my sincere apology. There was no intention of negligence. There is one contribution that has been a constant companion of mine, and this is Terje Stordalen’s Echoes of Eden (2000). Reading and reviewing (Mettinger 2003) this rich resource aroused my keen interest in Genesis 2–3. Moreover, Stordalen’s work did the best thing that a book can do: it inspired me to do work of my own. For this, I am profoundly grateful. It is a pleasure for me to thank colleagues and friends who have helped me with advice and comments on various chapters. Aspects of literary theory are important in my work, and so are Assyriological matters. Both fields are full of pitfalls for the biblical scholar. I received valuable comments on my “literary” chapters from some eminent specialists. Thus, Greger Andersson (Örebro) and Anders Palm (Lund) read and commented on my chapter on narratology, and at the very outset of my project Anders Palm gave me expert advice on what to read in narratology. Eva Haettner Aurelius (Lund) read my chapter on genre. Torsten Pettersson (Uppsala) read and gave valuable comments on all of chaps. 1–4. On Mesopotamian texts, I have had the great privilege of being able to consult outstanding Assyriologists, with documented competence

xiv

Preface

also in the West-Semitic ambit. Manfried Dietrich (Münster) read chap. 6, and Peter Machinist (Harvard) read chaps. 6–7. Both colleagues gave valuable comments on my material. Earlier in my project, Edward Lipinski reminded me of important references and sent me his review of Chrostowski’s monograph (Lipinski 2001). I discussed some matters of Egyptology (eventually not included) with Lana Troy (Uppsala). I have also received inspiration from my own intellectual milieu at CTR (that is, the Centre for Theology and Religious Studies, Lund). My thanks are thus extended to Tord Olsson for a session in the Senior Seminar on Comparative Religion (on chap. 4) and Sten Hidal for two sessions in the Senior Seminar on Biblical Studies (on chaps. 2–3). Sten Hidal also provided information about the interpretation of the Eden Narrative in the Early Church. Göran Eidevall and Irene von GörtzWrisberg gave me valuable comments and tips on literature. Irene also shared my proofreading burdens. Ola Wikander has been an inspiring conversation partner throughout the project. Tomas Lind (the University Library) and Leif Lindin (the Theological Library) provided indispensable help on a number of bibliographical matters. Magnus Zetterholm, specialist in New Testament Studies and computers, enhanced my dexterity with the last-mentioned resource to unforeseen heights. Scrutiny of my English was made possible by a grant from the Royal Academy of Letters, History, and Antiquities, Stockholm. A grant from the same source financed the proofreading. From beginning to end, it has been a pleasure to work with my publisher, James E. Eisenbraun, and his staff. I am especially grateful to my editor, Mrs. Beverly McCoy, for the skill and care that she has invested in my book. Working my way into the Eden Narrative was to me an experience of sheer intellectual enjoyment. It also reminded me of the privilege of being a biblical scholar: the gift of spending one’s years on the narrow peninsula of time in close contact with texts of unmatched existential dimensions. Borgeby, on Candlemas Day, February 2, 2007 Tryggve N. D. Mettinger

Abbreviations General BM col. frag. DH Dtr GE LXX MB MT nrsv OB P rsv SB VA

registration number of cuneiform tablets in the collections of the British Museum column fragment Deuteronomistic History Deuteronomistic Gilgamesh Epic Septuagint Middle Babylonian The Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible New Revised Standard Version Old Babylonian Priestly source Revised Standard Version Standard Babylonian Vorderasiatische Abteilung Thontafeln

Reference Works AfO AJSL ANET AOAT AUSS BaghM BDB Bib BibS(N) BJRL BKAT BN BO BWL BZAW CAD

Archiv für Orientforschung American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literature Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, ed. J. B. Pritchard. Third edition. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1969 Alter Orient und Altes Testament Andrews University Seminary Studies Baghdader Mitteilungen Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament. F. Brown, S. R. Driver, and C. A. Briggs. Oxford: Clarendon, 1907 Biblica Biblische Studien (Neukirchen, 1951–) Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester Biblischer Kommentar, Altes Testament Biblische Notizen Bibliotheca Orientalis Babylonian Wisdom Literature. W. G. Lambert. Oxford, 1967. Reprinted, Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996 Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, ed. A. L. Oppenheim et al. Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1956–

xv

xvi

CAT

Abbreviations

The Cuneiform Alphabetic Texts from Ugarit, Ras Ibn Hani and Other Places, ed. Manfried Dietrich, Oswald Loretz, and Joaquin Sanmartín. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1995 [second, enlarged edition of Die keilalphabetischen Texte aus Ugarit] CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly CBQMS Catholic Biblical Quarterly: Monograph Series CDA A Concise Dictionary of Akkadian, ed. Jeremy Black, Andrew George, and Nicholas Postgate. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1999 ConBOT Coniectanea Biblica: Old Testament Series CTM Concordia Theological Monthly ER Encyclopedia of Religion, ed. M. Eliade. 16 vols. New York: Macmillan, 1987 FRLANT Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch; trans. A. E. Cowley. GKC Second ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1910 HKAT Handkommentar zum Alten Testament HSS Harvard Semitic Studies HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual IBHS An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. B. K. Waltke and M. O’Connor. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990 JAOS Journal of the American Oriental Society JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JCS Journal of Cuneiform Studies JJS Journal of Jewish Studies JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series JSPSup Journal for the Study of the Pseudepigrapha: Supplement Series JSS Journal of Semitic Studies JTS Journal of Theological Studies LB Linguistica Biblica OBO Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis OBT Overtures to Biblical Theology OLP Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica Or Orientalia OrAnt Oriens Antiquus OTG Old Testament Guides PTMS Pittsburgh Theological Monograph Series RA Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale RB Revue biblique RENT Routledge Encyclopedia of Narrative Theory, ed. David Herman, Manfred Jahn, and Marie-Laure Ryan. London: Routledge, 2005 RHPR Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses SAACT State Archives of Assyria: Cuneiform Texts SBB Stuttgarter biblische Beiträge SBS Stuttgarter Bibelstudien SBT Studies in Biblical Theology

Abbreviations

SBTS SEÅ SJOT SSN STK SubBi TB

xvii

Sources for Biblical and Theological Studies Svensk Exegetisk Årsbok Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament Studia Semitica Neerlandica Svensk Teologisk Kvartalskrift Subsidia Biblica Theologische Bücherei: Neudrucke und Berichte aus dem 20. Jahrhundert TTKi Tidsskrift for Teologi og Kirke TUAT Texte aus der Umwelt des Alten Testaments, ed. Otto Kaiser. Gütersloh: Mohn, 1981– TWAT Theologisches Wörterbuch zum Alten Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1973– TZ Theologische Zeitschrift UF Ugarit-Forschungen VT Vetus Testamentum VTSup Supplements to Vetus Testamentum WBC Word Biblical Commentary WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament WO Die Welt des Orients ZA Zeitschrift für Assyriologie ZAH Zeitschrift für Althebraistik ZAW Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft ZDPV Zeitschrift des deutschen Palästina-Vereins ZTK Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche

Chapter 1

Introduction 1.1. The Agenda of the Present Study In the present work, I aim to answer two specific questions: 1. What is the theme of the narrative in Genesis 2–3 (to be exact: 2:4–3:24)? This entails a study of the Genesis passage as a selfcontained piece of literature. 2. Did the poet use a preliterary story about the first man in Eden and develop this material into something new? If so, what do these changes tell us about the interests of this poet? This entails raising the tradition-historical question. I will proceed in the following manner: First, I subject the Eden Narrative to a narratological analysis, whereupon I move to a discussion of theme and genre. I then deal with the tradition history and the revealing changes made by the Eden Poet. Finally, because the two trees symbolize knowledge and immortality, I discuss two Mesopotamian myths in which we find a thematic combination of these very phenomena. Various labels have been used in referring to the story in Genesis 2– 3. 1 To call it “the story of the fall” presupposes the idea of an original state of existence, the Urstand or prelapsarian state (a state before the “fall”) of Christian dogmatics. The designation “Adamic myth” (Ricoeur) presupposes that a stance has already been taken on the issue of genre. Simply using “Genesis 2–3” is rather bland. I have opted for calling the story the Eden Narrative, a designation that does not imply any preconceived interpretation but nevertheless reminds us of the contents of the passage and forms an apt title for a piece of poetry by a master. When we ask what a story is all about, we are speaking of its theme. The ensuing presentation of some previous, representative opinions is complicated by the fact that many exegetes do not use the term theme 1. See Jensen 2004: 41 n. 1.

1

2

Chapter 1

in their interpretation of Genesis 2–3 but nevertheless seem to express an opinion regarding the central content or idea of the passage. 2 In his classic commentary, Gunkel expresses himself fairly clearly about the message of the Eden Narrative. After his treatment of the many details, he devotes some five pages to an overall estimation. 3 He notes that the main point of the narrative appears at the very end: the expulsion from the garden (p. 33). Gunkel calls attention to the fact that the story seeks to answer an underlying question. If the story had ended with a “therefore” (as we have it in the subsection ending with 2:24), then it would be told with an eye to the events described: Therefore, humans now have knowledge of good and evil, but they no longer live in Paradise; instead, they suffer all sorts of toil and misery (p. 29). Westermann calls attention to the span of events ( Geschehensbogen) comprising the divine command § transgression § expulsion, finding “a primeval narrative of crime and punishment” in these chapters. 4 Like Gunkel, he sees the narrative as an attempt to answer a basic, existential question. This question is not “How did death come into the world?” but, rather, “Why is the human being, though created by God, a being limited by death, suffering, toil, and sin?” (p. 377). Similarly, Gordon Wenham finds that Genesis 2–3 offers “a paradigm of sin, a model of what happens whenever man disobeys God.” 5 It “explains through a story what constitutes sin and what sin’s consequences are” (p. 90). Gerhard von Rad, in his exposition of this narrative, finds “one of its most significant affirmations” in the serpent’s insinuation of “the 2. A broad history of interpretation of the Eden Narrative from the Early Church to the early twentieth century is found in Feldmann (1913: 501–605), a work that Terje Stordalen kindly called to my attention. For a survey of the study of the Eden Narrative in early historical-critical study, see Metzger 1959. For surveys of the later scholarship, see Westermann (1976: 255–59, English trans. 1984: 186– 90; 1972: 26–39); Stordalen (2000: 187–205); and Jensen (2004: 41–69). Space does not permit me to list works on the history of reception. I would like to mention the following, however: on Adam in early Judaism, Levison (1988); on Adam and Eve in early Jewish and Christian thinking, Gary A. Anderson (2001); and on Genesis 2–3 in Syriac Christianity, Kronholm (1978: 85–134) and Gary A. Anderson (1988). Note the handy compilation of excerpts from the Church Fathers in Louth and Conti 2001: 47–102. 3. Gunkel 1910: 28–33. 4. Westermann 1976: 259–67. Note p. 263: “eine urgeschichtliche Erzählung von Schuld und Strafe.” English trans. 1984: 190–96; the quotation above is from 1984: 193. 5. Wenham 1987: 90.

spread is 6 points short

Introduction

3

possibility of an extension of human existence beyond the limits set for it by God at creation.” 6 Von Rad appears to regard human hubris and its consequences as the thematic focus of the narrative. In his 1970 monograph, Odil Hannes Steck argues along similar lines, laying heavy stress on the etiological nature of the narrative. According to Steck, it is to be understood according to its conclusion, which speaks of the expulsion from Eden. It is a story that tells of the reasons for the present human predicament, with its shortcomings and damaged relations between human beings. To Steck, the very root of the evil is “the human endeavor to form one’s own existence autonomously.” 7 The Eden Narrative contains two prominent symbols: the tree of life and the tree of knowledge. Two scholars who take these symbols as points of departure for their different interpretations of the theme of the narrative are James Barr and Terje Stordalen. According to Barr, the two themes articulated in the story are knowledge and immortality. 8 He adds provocatively: “The person who comes out of this story with a slightly shaky moral record is, of course, God.” Barr goes on to ask: “Why does he want to keep eternal life for himself and not let them [the humans] share it? Even more seriously, why does he not want them to have knowledge of good and evil? What is wrong with this knowledge, that they should not possess it?” 9 Barr’s thesis about the Eden Narrative is that this is not, as it has commonly been understood in the Christian tradition, basically a story about the origins of sin and evil. To Barr, the Eden Narrative is “a story of how human immortality was almost gained, but in fact was lost” (p. 4). The humans were expelled from the garden, “not because they were unworthy to stay there, or because they were hopelessly alienated from God, but because, if they stayed there, they would soon gain access to the tree of life, and eat of its fruit, and gain immortality: they would ‘live for ever’ (Genesis 3:22).” 10 6. Von Rad 1961: 87. 7. Steck 1970; on the genre as “etiological narrative,” see pp. 66–73; on the endeavor for autonomy, including the quotation above, see pp. 124–25: “das menschliche Bestreben nach autonomer Selbstgestaltung des eigenen Daseins.” 8. Barr’s monograph has the title The Garden of Eden and the Hope of Immortality (1993). It is based on his Read-Tuckwell lectures, a funded lectureship designed to deal with human immortality and related matters. 9. Barr 1993: 14. 10. Barr 1993: 4.

4

Chapter 1

In his monograph Echoes of Eden (2000), Stordalen also recognizes the importance of the two trees and their symbolism but takes a different approach. 11 He suggests making a basic distinction between the story and the story’s meaning. The first he calls “story narration” and the second “story significance” (pp. 64–65). In a reading that is primarily focused on the first of these but even so comes close to an overall understanding, he discovers “the fundamental conflict of the story, that of Life and Knowledge” (p. 241). To him, the Eden Narrative is “a story where the human party at first had less knowledge but free admission to the Tree of Life, and in the end attained more knowledge but was exiled from the garden” (pp. 241–42). It is a story about the impossibility of having both: knowledge and life. Basically, the text presents itself as “a narrative formulation of the need to keep and guard Wisdom and Torah” (p. 474). An interpretation that increasingly attracts attention is the Eden Narrative as a story about human maturation. 12 In her semiotic analysis, Ellen van Wolde argues that this is in fact the central thematic aspect of the story. 13 She sees Gen 2:24 (the man leaving his father and mother) as presenting “man’s process of development in a nutshell” (p. 217). Van Wolde takes the four narrative episodes as referring to the subsequent stages of “before birth” (2:4b–6), “childhood” (2:7–25), “adolescence” (3:1–7), and “maturity” (3:8–24, p. 218). The tree is the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The same type of knowledge is mentioned in connection with children in Deut 1:39, “your children, who this day have no knowledge of good or evil” (rsv), as van Wolde notes (p. 218). She concludes: “[T]he reader gives the (iconic) qualities and possibilities of the text their maximum due when he arranges the text from the perspective of ‘the growth towards maturity of man’” (p. 223). The maturation exegesis is an understanding that has won sympathy among feminist theologians. Lyn M. Bechtel develops this interpretation in two studies. 14 A well-known feminist approach that moves in a different direction is the approach of Phyllis Trible. 15 What she offers is a close reading in the spirit of James Muilenburg. She 11. Stordalen 2000: 229–49, especially pp. 240–49, 457–71. 12. See, earlier, Gunkel 1910: 18. 13. See van Wolde 1989: 216–29. 14. Bechtel 1993 and 1995. Note that Bechtel worked out her interpretation unaware and independent of van Wolde; see Bechtel 1993: 83 n. 1. Stordalen also views maturation as an important aspect of the text (Stordalen 2000: 242–49). 15. See Trible 1985: chap. 4, pp. 72–143.

Introduction

5

notes that “Life and Death is the subject of the narrative” (p. 74). Her overall interpretation is, as her chapter heading indicates, “a love story gone awry.” Her subheads speak of “eros created” (2:4b–7, p. 75), “the development of eros” (2:7–24, p. 79), “eros contaminated” (2:25–3:7, p. 105), and “the disintegration of eros” (3:8–24, p. 115). This brief survey shows one thing clearly: there is no consensus on what the Eden Narrative is all about—on its actual theme.

1.2. One or Two Trees? A Survey of Opinions The Eden Narrative in Genesis 2–3, in the form that we now have it, is a story about divine commandment, human disobedience, and the consequences of insurrection. This span of events has as its focal point the two special trees in the garden of Eden, which are the most prominent symbols of the narrative. These two trees are connected with certain problems that have been solved in a number of different ways. The discussion about whether there are two trees or only one is not a discussion about a minor detail. 16 On the contrary, the trees stand for life (immortality) and knowledge (wisdom), two divine prerogatives. Is there an organic relation between wisdom and immortality, or are these two motifs unconnected? Indeed, the whole sense of the narrative depends on what we decide about the two special trees in the garden of Eden. 17 It should be noted that I retain the conventional translation “good and evil,” though the real sense may actually be “good and bad.” 18 A survey of the references to the trees looks as follows: 2:9 2:17 3:3

3:6 3:11

two trees: the tree of life in the midst of the garden and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil one tree forbidden: the tree of the knowledge of good and evil one tree forbidden: the tree in the midst of the garden (which is a tree that opens the eyes and gives knowledge of good and evil, v. 5) the tree the tree (which was forbidden)

16. As was pointed out by Humbert 1940: 21. 17. “Tout le sense du mythe en dépend” (Humbert 1940: 21). 18. See below, §3.2.4 (p. 63).

6

Chapter 1

3:17 3:22

3:24

the tree (which was forbidden) two trees: a. implicit reference to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil b. explicit reference to the tree of life, from which one may not eat the tree of life

Four irregularities leap to the eye from this listing: • The tree of life only appears in two places, at the beginning and at the end of the story. The rest of the narrative deals with one tree only, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. • The single tree in the “corpus” of the text is unnamed except in 2:17. • The expression “in the midst of the garden” appears twice: the first time as the place of the tree of life (2:9) and the second time as the place of the forbidden tree (3:3), which the continuation identifies as the tree that gives knowledge. This striking variation needs an explanation. What are the implications of the woman’s “mistake”? • Only one of the trees is forbidden to the humans, the tree of knowledge. The prohibition does not pertain to the tree of life. Only at the end, after the eating of the forbidden tree, is the way to the tree of life barred. The text offers no explicit explanation for this difference between the trees. Why was the tree of life not forbidden from the beginning? One is tempted to agree with Claus Westermann when he notes that the two special trees produced not only appetizing fruit but also a vast assortment of literature. 19 Many scholars from the last century seem to agree that, while the tree of life holds a place at the center of the garden, it somehow stands at the margin of the narrative. 20 Ellen van Wolde notes a corresponding tendency in the way that scholars deal with the two trees. Surveying the research, she points out that “the trees are almost always dealt with separately and not related to each other” and that “attention is almost exclusively directed to the tree of knowledge of good and evil, whereas the tree of life is paid hardly any attention.” 21 19. Westermann 1984: 211, German original 1976: 288. 20. As was noted by Winter 1986: 57. 21. Van Wolde 1994: 32.

Introduction

7

The one-tree trend in critical research started with Karl Budde in 1883. Budde proposed a theory according to which the tree of life was a secondary amendment to a story that originally only contained one. The reference to both trees in the Masoretic Text of 2:9 is a main point in his argument. The wording is strange, he notes, because the locative expression “in the midst of the garden” is placed between the two, making the tree of knowledge a latecomer, not necessarily sharing the privileged position. 22 He also aptly points out that in 3:3 the tree in the middle of the garden is the tree of knowledge and not the tree of life. 23 Budde prunes the text and emends 2:9 to read: “Out of the ground the Lord God made to grow every tree that is pleasant for the sight and good for food. And in the midst of the garden the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” 24 Budde thus deletes the tree of life from the narrative. He also eliminates the other two occurrences of the tree of life—those at the end of the text (3:22–24). 25 There is only one tree in Budde’s Eden Narrative, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Budde’s theory fared quite well in twentieth-century research. Gunkel took it up in his influential commentary on Genesis, finding only one tree in his “main source” ( JE) but two trees in a later stratum. 26 Westermann, in his magnum opus, expressly placed himself in the wake of Budde and magisterially declared: Does it [the narrative] deal with one tree or with two? A proper answer can be given only by looking at the narrative as a whole; it is concerned with one tree only. K. Budde has demonstrated this convincingly . . . and nothing has been advanced yet to refute him. He has shown that there is only one tree in the body of the narrative, 3:2, 3, 5, 11, 12, and that it is qualified in two ways—the tree in the middle of the garden, 3:3, and the forbidden tree: 3:11. 27

This one, unnamed tree receives a name when the tree of life is incorporated; the unnamed tree now becomes the tree of knowledge (2:9; 17). 28 In his monograph on the Eden Narrative (1985), Howard N. Wallace devotes an entire chapter to the two trees and makes a number of 22. Budde 1883: 51. 23. Budde 1883: 48. 24. Budde 1883: 58. 25. Budde 1883: 54–65. Budde deletes vv. 22 and 24 and has the text end with 6:3 (which he removes from its present location) followed by 3:23. 26. Gunkel 1910: 16 and 26. 27. Westermann 1984: 212, German original 1976: 289. 28. Westermann 1984: 223, German original 1976: 303.

8

Chapter 1

observations. He notes from the outset that, “[w]hile two trees are mentioned in the present form of the narrative, it is clear that only one tree is essential for its development.” Wallace then goes on to treat them separately. His discussion of the tree of knowledge leads him to conclude that the main concern of the narrative is the penetration of the divine realm by the couple. 29 Christoph Dohmen, in his monograph on creation and death in Genesis 2–3, proceeds along the same path, endorsing Budde’s main point about there only being one original tree. 30 To Dohmen, the original “Yahwist” story, which he dates to the time of Solomon, contained one tree only, the fruit of which bestowed the gift of opened eyes. A reworking from the time of Manasseh by the “Elohist” brought the two trees to the fore. The original, unnamed tree is now denoted the tree of knowledge. 31 David Carr, in his turn, finds a three-step development: first an early creation account, then a creation-and-fall story with the tree of knowledge, and finally a layer that adds the tree of life. 32 The venerable tradition from Budde is amply represented even in the most recent research. 33 Ever since Paul Humbert’s 1940 monograph, however, a small group of scholars have defended the opposite position: that both trees have meaningful functions in the story and that this may be the case even if the process of growth behind the present story is a complicated and intriguing one. Humbert’s contribution (1940) is a major monograph on the Eden Narrative. Humbert did not feel convinced by the arguments for traditional source criticism in the Eden story. His perusal of the suggestions for doublets in Genesis 2–3 led to the conclusion that only a few are uncontestable: 2:8 and 2:9 are doublets, as are 2:8 and 2:15; indeed, the whole passage of 2:10–14 (the paradise rivers) should be considered a learned gloss (1940: 46–47). The text as we now have it combines the motifs of two originally independent myths: a myth of creation and a paradise myth (pp. 48–81). Budde’s emendation in 2:9 should be accepted. This verse did not originally contain a reference to the tree of life (pp. 21–22). Nevertheless, both trees have a firm place 29. Wallace 1985: 101–41, esp. pp. 102 and 130. Quotation from p. 102. 30. Dohmen 1996: 208–14 (original pub., 1988). 31. Dohmen 1996: 208–14; see also 154–74. 32. Carr 1993: esp. p. 583. Pfeiffer (2001: 4–7) also assumes a single tree and connects this with the tradition of the world tree. 33. One could mention Witte 1998: 81; Rottzoll 1997–1998, esp. 1998: 1, 14; and Pfeiffer 2000: 491.

Introduction

9

in the story. On the presuppositions of the narrative, the tree of life was there from the beginning in the garden. But it does not show up in the text until its very end (3:22–24, p. 128); that is to say, its existence was hidden until then. Humbert’s thesis of the hidden tree of life (“l’arbre caché de la vie”) is an original suggestion but seems not to have commended itself to subsequent researchers. 34 Humbert also offers a perceptive discussion of life and death in Genesis 2–3, listing various interpretational options for the tree of life. 35 After Humbert, other scholars argued for the unity of the text and found textual “surgery” of the literary-critical type unwarranted, but Humbert played a surprisingly marginal role in the debate. Odil Hannes Steck, in his monograph of 1970, defended the thesis that the text is a unified whole (p. 27) and suggested a traditionhistorical development behind it. He found an older Paradiesgeschichte (Paradise story), with only one tree, which grew into the Paradieserzählung (Paradise Narrative) of the Yahwist as we now have it, a narrative with two trees and the passage with the sentencing of the serpent, woman, and man. 36 Genesis 2–3 is an etiological narrative, to be read “from its end”—in other words, it should be understood from its etiological perspective. 37 In his 1993 monograph, James Barr maintains that the tree of life has an essential place in the text. Barr underlines his readiness to imagine that there was an original story about just one tree, a nameless tree that then reappears as the tree of knowledge. His object of study is, however, the story as we have it; he takes a “canonical” approach. The final story testifies to a connection between life and wisdom that is also found in Proverbs (3:18). At this stage, the story tells “how human immortality was almost gained, but in fact was lost.” 38 In his major monograph on the motif of Eden in the whole Hebrew Bible, Echoes of Eden (2000), Terje Stordalen also provides a thorough treatment of all relevant aspects of Genesis 2–3 (pp. 185–301). This scholar goes into close combat with the defendants of the one-tree position, especially Budde and Westermann. 39 In recent literature, he notes a trend toward the final text—a position that has also become 34. Humbert 1940: 21–28, esp. pp. 21–22, 26, 129. 35. Humbert 1940: 117–52, esp. pp. 126–27. 36. Steck 1970: 41–58, esp. pp. 45–56. 37. Steck 1970: 66–73: “von hinten her will sie auch gelesen sein” (p. 68). 38. Barr 1993: 57–61; quotation from p. 4. 39. Stordalen 2000: 187–97.

10

Chapter 1

his own. 40 Stordalen understands the text as a narrative about the two trees and suggests a fundamental conflict between life and knowledge. In the story, the human party at first had less knowledge but free admission to the tree of life but in the end attained more knowledge but was exiled from the garden with the tree of life. 41 Konrad Schmid finds a unified and well-structured narrative, defying literary-critical “surgery.” Only one tree was forbidden; the humans made the mistake of not taking the opportunity to eat from the tree of life, because they were more intent on attaining knowledge. 42 Surveying the attempts chosen as representative, above, we can easily see that scholars working along literary-critical lines of the traditional, continental type usually find the tree of knowledge to be the original tree, the tree of life being a later development. Scholars working along tradition-historical lines sometimes find a similar development, albeit explained in terms of traditions or motifs. A reverse perspective—first the tree of life and then also the tree of knowledge—has only been adopted by a few exegetes. The tree of life is thus seen as the original tree by Eduard Nielsen. 43 Jutta Krispenz, studying the Eden Narrative in light of the Egyptian tree goddess Nut, concludes that the tree of life is the basic motif of the tradition, while the tree of knowledge is a later blueprint of this motif. 44 When I proceed to my narratological analysis, I shall have the following questions in mind, garnered from a first perusal of the text and from the preceding survey of major scholarly contributions. These questions are not narratological questions per se, but I hope to be able to answer them after a narratological analysis of Genesis 2–3: 1. Why are there two trees but only one prohibition? Notably, why is the tree of life not forbidden? 2. Why does the body of the narrative only deal with the tree of knowledge? 3. What are the implications of the “mistake” of the woman when she refers to the tree of knowledge as being “in the midst of the garden”? 40. Stordalen 2000: 197–98. 41. Stordalen 2000: 215–49, esp. pp. 240–49, and note pp. 241–42. 42. Schmid 2002: esp. p. 32. 43. Nielsen 1972: 13–22, esp. pp. 20–22. 44. Krispenz 2004: esp. p. 314. “Der Lebensbaum ist in alledem das tragende und von der Tradition getragene Motiv. . . . Der zweite Baum, der Erkenntnisbaum, ist dem Lebensbaum nachgeformt, ohne das [sic] er darum auf der literarischen Ebene von Gen. iif. sekundär genannt werden müsste.”

Introduction

11

It is my contention that only if these questions must be left unanswered may we proceed to literary “surgery” in the text and assume a combination of sources. I am speaking of the textual level here; that there might be a combination of various traditions is a different matter. It is increasingly common in current scholarship to date the Eden Narrative to late postexilic times, even to the Persian period. I am convinced that this dating is correct and will not repeat the observations that have been made and that converge to support this conclusion. 45 45. For the insight that the text presupposes Genesis 1, see especially Otto 1996. See also Sawyer 1992: 64–66; Stordalen 1992; 2000: 206–13. See also below, §7.3 (p. 134).

Chapter 2

A Narratological Analysis of the Eden Narrative The narratological properties of the Eden Narrative have already been subjected to a number of analyses, resulting in valuable insights. 1 There is, however, room for further investigation of this important aspect of the narrative. Regardless of the historical developments that produced the text as we now have it, it is this final product that must be the starting point of our analysis. Until a convincing point against this presupposition has been presented, the final text must be regarded as a unified whole. First, some basic distinctions. The distinction between story and discourse seems to be indispensable to narratological studies. The term story designates “the narrated events, abstracted from their disposition in the text and reconstructed in their chronological order, together with the participants in these events.” 2 While story is the succession of events, discourse is the discursive presentation of them. 3 With Genette, one may say that discourse is the “signifier” and story the “signified.” 4 Second, a comment on the tripartition so well known from modern narratological studies: author (actual writer), implied author (“the image of the author projected by the text itself as the creator of its art” 5), and narrator. As Meir Sternberg points out, such a tripartition is not entirely unproblematic when dealing with biblical material; here the implied author and the narrator tend to merge into each other. For this reason, I will go along with Sternberg, who employs the more univocal term narrator “to refer to the master of the tale in general.” 6 1. For previous analyses of the narratological properties of the text, see especially Trible 1985: 72–143; Bal 1985: 31–42; White 1991: 115–45; Walsh 1994; and Stordalen 2000: 214–49. 2. Rimmon-Kenan 2005: 3. 3. Rimmon-Kenan 2005: 3; and Culler 1992: 169–70. 4. Genette 1980: 27. 5. Sternberg 1987: 74. On the notion of “the implied author,” see Booth 1991: 70–77. 6. Sternberg 1987: 74–75. See also Rimmon-Kenan 2005: 87–90.

12

A Narratological Analysis of the Eden Narrative

13

The Eden Narrative is a text characterized by simplicity. 7 There are a few short scenes, four major characters, a single location, and one time. There is a straight plot movement with a definite turning point. The first half of the text (2:4–24) is narrative without dialogue, marked by linear movement; the second (2:25–3:24) is marked by dialogue and uses more of a concentric arrangement.

2.1. Unifying Elements I shall not devote much space to the delimitation of the text. It is obvious that it ends with 3:24. Modern scholars also agree that it begins somewhere after the conclusion of the Priestly account of creation in Genesis 1. In my opinion it is now clear, from the studies of Terje Stordalen and Eckart Otto, that Gen 2:4 forms a bridge between this account of the creation and the Eden Narrative. 8 The text to be studied thus comprises 2:5–3:24. Before embarking on the narratological analysis proper, I will direct the reader’s attention to some unifying elements in the texts. There are four recurrent motifs that form what amounts to inclusios, or literary framing devices that function to delineate and hold the text together. 1. The expression “there was no one to till the ground,” found at the beginning of the text (2:5), strikes a significant note. The man was put in the garden of Eden “to till it and keep it” (2:15). When he was evicted from Eden, he had to “till the ground from which he was taken” (3:23). Occurring at the very beginning and end of the text, this motif forms an inclusio. 2. The formation of the human being from the dust of the ground is another motif that constitutes an inclusio. It is found at the very beginning of the narrative (2:7) and rounds off the section in the justquoted 3:23 (and see 2:19 regarding the creation of the animals). 7. As was pointed out by Trible 1985: 72. 8. Stordalen 1992; and Otto 1996: 183–92. Stordalen argues as follows: Gen 2:4 is a literary unity; we should not treat 4a with what precedes (Genesis 1) and 4b with what follows (Genesis 2). The toledot formula always serves as the introduction to the following section; it is always followed by a genitive of the progenitor (never of the progeny). Thus it here refers to the product of heaven and earth, not to the story of the genesis of the two. The combination of the toledot formula and a béyôm-clause is found not only in Gen 2:4 but also in Gen 5:1 and Num 3:1. Moreover, the verse forms a chiasmus. Gen 2:4 thus presupposes Gen 1:1–2:3 and serves as a bridge between it and the Eden Narrative.

14

Chapter 2

3. The notions life and life-giving have similar functions in the text. Having been formed from the dust and having received the breath of life into his nostrils, the man “became a living being” (2:7). At the end of the text, we find the woman being given the name Eve, “because she was the mother of all living” (3:20). The notion of life recurs in 3:22: eating from the tree of life implies that one will “live forever.” 4. We should not miss what is perhaps the most important motif to connect the beginning and end of the text, namely, the tree of life (2:9; 3:22, 24). Another noteworthy factor here is the divine designation used in the Eden Narrative: Yhwh Elohim (24 times). This designation occurs throughout, except for the conversation between the serpent and the woman, where we find only Elohim, used by the serpent and the woman alike (3:1b–7). 9 The double designation seems to indicate that the God of the Eden author is both Israel’s covenant partner (Yhwh) and the God of all creation (Elohim). Against the background of these observations, it becomes likely that the final part (3:20–24), which has so often been deemed secondary, also has a firm place in our narrative. Indeed, prima facie Genesis 2–3 stands out as a narrative that forms a meaningful whole. The ensuing analysis will determine whether this impression holds true or not.

2.2. Time and Location Time and location in the Eden Narrative may be dealt with very briefly. Terje Stordalen provides an informative discussion of these aspects of the narrative. 10 The events take place in the very distant past, in illo tempore. The main events occur immediately after the creation of man and woman. Stordalen has made a good case for the conclusion that this aspect of “primevalness” is emphasized by use of the word miqqedem (2:8), which he takes to have a temporal sense, “in the beginning, in the old days,” and not a locative sense, “in the east.” 11 However, it is impossible to be entirely certain about this issue. The location is the garden of Eden. What kind of reality should be ascribed to the garden in the narrative? Stordalen notes that “comparable 9. On this designation, see L’Hour 1974: esp. pp. 552–56. Note also Wenham 1987: 57; and Stordalen 2000: 287 and 457–58. 10. Stordalen 2000: 250–301. 11. Stordalen 2000: 261–70, esp. pp. 268–70. For this temporal sense, see, for instance, Deut 33:15, 27; Mic 5:1; Hab 1:12; Ps 68:34.

spread is 6 points short

A Narratological Analysis of the Eden Narrative

15

literature locates comparable gardens in cosmic border regions.” 12 He points to the etymology of the name Eden, which provides connotations of ‘luxuriance’, ‘bliss’. 13 Eden is an “emblem” of human richness and happiness. 14 After a 50-page discussion of all relevant aspects, Stordalen is able to conclude: “On the one hand, we are caused to construe the Eden Garden as a cosmic ‘world apart’, whose events are not conceivable in the ordinary realm. On the other hand, precisely its ‘otherness’ accounts for its symbolical relation to the everyday world.” 15 God “took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it” (2:15). It is tempting to understand Eden as “the private garden of God,” as it seems to be in some other passages (Ezek 28:13, Isa 51:3), and to follow Edward L. Greenstein, who sees man’s work in the garden as menial labor in the service of the deity. 16 There may well be, as Greenstein maintains, a remnant of the ancient Near Eastern notion of humanity created to take over the work of the gods; but if so, this connection is on the subliminal level, as Greenstein himself notes. What we have on the surface level in Genesis 2 is a garden planted for the maintenance of humans, and man’s work here has the primary function of providing food. 17 A sacred mountain, vegetation, and water together form a stock motif in ancient Near Eastern iconography. We find it in the famous wall relief in the palace of Assurbanipal. 18 As Manfried Dietrich has discussed in a thorough study, the motifs of the garden in Genesis 2– 3 are depicted against a backdrop provided by the Mesopotamian temple garden. 19 The passage on the rivers of paradise (2:10–14) has sometimes been taken to refer to a definite area in the east. Manfried Dietrich suggests 12. Stordalen 2000: 286. 13. See Millard 1984; Stordalen 2000: 257–61. 14. Stordalen 2000: 298. 15. Stordalen 2000: 301. See also Westermann 1976: 294; English trans. 1984: 215–16. 16. Greenstein (2002: 234), who suggests some interesting parallels to the creation of humanity in the service of the gods in Semitic literature (notably Atrahasis; pp. 219–39). 17. See Westermann 1976: 283–84, English trans. 1984: 208. 18. See Keel 1978: fig. 202, discussion pp. 149–51; Börker-Klähn 1982: no. 228, plates volume p. 228, text volume p. 217. An excellent discussion of the configuration mountain–vegetation–water is provided by Metzger 1983b. 19. For details, see Dietrich 2001.

16

Chapter 2

southern Mesopotamia and refers to the traditions and iconography of Enki/Ea of Eridu, an important cultic center in the south, while John Day refers to Armenia instead. 20 The observations made by Stordalen make me less inclined to assume a real-world geography here. The rivers streaming forth in Genesis 2 seem to me to reflect the notion found in the tradition behind the Eden Narrative about Eden as situated on a mountain (Ezek 28:14, 16). Because this may be “the mount of the assembly” (compare Isa 14:13)—El’s dwelling place—it is not impossible that the garden of Eden has some connection to the idea of the dwelling place of El. 21 When all is said and done, the Eden geography may well combine various backgrounds in which, ultimately, connotations of both Enki/ Ea and El are combined. In light of what has been said above, however, what is important for us is that we are not justified in placing the events of Gen 2:10–14 in a real-world geographical context. 22

2.3. Scenes and Plot 1. Scenes What are the criteria to be used in defining the scenes of a narrative? Basically, we may focus on change: scenes are small pieces of a narrative that are distinguished from one another on the basis of a change of person, place, or action. 23 There is a fair amount of agreement about how the scenes in the Eden Narrative should be delineated. Terje Stordalen suggests a sevenscene arrangement, as do Jerome T. Walsh and Gordon Wenham. 24 Taking 2:4 as a superscript or redactional bridge and 3:20–21 as a piece of interplay, Stordalen suggests the delineation shown in the chart on p. 17. The main difference between Stordalen and the scholars mentioned above is that, while Stordalen takes 2:25–3:7 as a single scene, the others divide this section into two scenes (3:1–5 and 3:6–8) and take the whole of 2:5–17 as a single scene. It is worth noticing that Phyllis Trible also considers 2:25–3:7 to be a single scene. 25 Moreover, 20. Dietrich 2001: 302–20; Day 2000: 29–31. 21. Day 2000: 29–34. For a connection between first man and the divine assembly, see Job 15:7–8. 22. On this subject, I agree with Westermann (1976: 294; English trans. 1984: 215–16) and Stordalen (2000: 250–301). 23. Thus, e.g., Gunkel 1910: xxxiv. 24. Stordalen 2000: 218–20; Walsh 1994; and Wenham 1987: 50–51. 25. This scene forms the middle section in her three-part arrangement (which also comprises 2:7–24 and 3:8–24). See Trible 1985: 79–143.

spread is 6 points long

A Narratological Analysis of the Eden Narrative

17

1. Yhwh God creates the first human being (2:5–7). 2. Yhwh God plants the garden and locates the human being there (2:8–17). 3. Yhwh God creates animals and the woman (2:18–24). 4. The naked couple eat and gain insight (2:25–3:7). 5. Yhwh God conducts a hearing (3:8–13). 6. Yhwh God issues sentences (3:14–19). 7. Yhwh God expels the couple from the garden and the Tree of Life (3:22–24).

we find that this scene, which contains the climax of the plot, stands beautifully as the central piece of the whole scenic arrangement if we follow Stordalen. 26 A few more reflections are in order. The first has to do with the way in which Stordalen and others interpret 3:8–13 (God conducts a hearing) and 3:14–19 (God issues sentences) as two different scenes. One might consider reading this as a single scene. Discourse time and story time are equal throughout 3:8–19. The place is one and the same, and the same persons appear. However, a change of action is observable: first, God conducts a hearing; then he issues a sentence. On the basis of the change of action, I prefer Stordalen’s understanding: we have two different scenes here. The second point has to do with the phenomenon of exposition. Stordalen does not identify any exposition in Genesis 2–3, though exposition is a common phenomenon in biblical narrative. 27 By exposition, one generally means “the presentation of indispensable pieces of information about the state of affairs that precedes the beginning of action itself.” 28 There are two different ways of bringing expositional material to the reader’s attention. Either the material may 26. Trible (1985: 106–7) finds a contrived inclusio arrangement in 2:25–3:7, but her B and Bu do not correspond and neither do her C and Cu. Auffret (1982: 23–68) has a five-scene arrangement, as follows: Gen 2:4b–17, 2:18–25, 3:1–13, 3:14–21, and 3:22–24. 27. See Bar-Efrat 1989: 111–21. A thorough study of various types of distribution of expositional material in fiction is found in Sternberg (1978: 41–128). 28. Ska 1990: 21, emphasis in the original. Similarly, to Sternberg (1978: 20–33), the exposition is what goes before the first scene. In the first scene, the action proper takes its starting point.

18

Chapter 2

be offered at the beginning, or it may be revealed gradually in the course of the narrative. 29 It is not easy to decide about expositional material in Genesis 2. Westermann seems inclined to take the whole of 2:5–24 as an exposition of the narrative in Genesis 3. 30 However, this would be going a bit too far. If we were to look for exposition in the beginning, then 2:5–7 might make sense. It is clear that in this section we are being informed about the state of affairs at the beginning: there are no plants in the field, no herbs, no rain, and no one to till the ground. The problem with taking vv. 5–7 as the exposition is, however, that we also find action here: God creates man. I therefore agree with Stordalen’s tacit assumption that we do not find any separate exposition in Genesis 2–3.

2. “Plot Segments” The term plot I understand, with Prince, as referring to “[t]he main incidents of a narrative; the outline of situations and events (thought of as distinct from the characters involved in them or the themes illustrated by them).” 31 An intriguing issue is the relationship between plot and story. Many would agree that, irrespective of the sequence of the discourse, plot is the arrangement of the events in temporal order. 32 Others would go along with Chatman, who says: “The events in a story are turned into a plot by its discourse, the modus of presentation.” 33 This amounts to speaking of plot as “story-as-discoursed.” In the present context, there is no need to arrive at a definite understanding of the relation between plot, story, and discourse. In Genesis 2–3, the author uses various kinds of plot signals. He exploits the technique of stating a problem to be solved or a gap to be filled. Thus 2:5 refers to the lack of vegetation and of a human being to till the earth, and 2:18 refers to the lack of a companion for the human. The prohibition in 2:17 signals a divine trial of the first humans, arousing the reader’s curiosity about the outcome. In his penetrating study, Stordalen (2000) works on the basis of these plot signals, uncovering five “plot segments.” (We should note that these are not identical with sections of the text; they are intertwined.) Stordalen finds four “announced plot segments” and one ad29. See Bar-Efrat 1989: 111–21. 30. Westermann 1976: 263, English trans. 1984: 192. 31. Prince 2003: 73. On plot, note the article by Dannenberg (2005), with bibliography; Rimmon-Kenan 2005: 6–28. 32. See, for instance, Bar-Efrat 1989: 93. 33. Chatman 1980: 43.

A Narratological Analysis of the Eden Narrative

19

ditional plot segment as constituting the “emerging conflict.” His “plot segments” are as follows: 34

1. A Human Tiller to the World (found especially in 2:5–7, and also in 2:8–15 and 3:17–19) 2. A Counterpart for the Human Being (2:18–24) 3. Prohibition Test (2:16–17; 3:1–6; 3:14–19) 4. Human Knowledge (2:25–3:7; 3:8–13; 3:21; 3:22a) 5. Emerging Conflict: Life vs. Knowledge (2:8–16, 23–24 etc.)

The “emerging conflict” means: “Life but not Life and Knowledge.” 35 This fifth plot segment is the only one that is actually related to all scenes in the story (p. 232). This fact has certain implications for Stordalen’s overall understanding of the text. He distinguishes between what he calls “story narration” and “story significance” (pp. 63–67). While Stordalen avoids committing himself with regard to the theme of the text, his definition of the emerging conflict as the fundamental aspect of the plot is important to his understanding of the meaning of the text. 36 Stordalen thus assumes a fundamental conflict in the story, a conflict between “Life” and “Knowledge.” In the narrative, “the human party at first had less knowledge but free admission to the Tree of Life, and in the end attained more knowledge but was exiled from the garden” (pp. 241–42). Contrasting Life and Knowledge in this way, Stordalen has to assume that Life in the sense of immortality was at hand from the beginning. The question is whether this overall understanding carries conviction. There are two problems with the conclusion that the text presents a fundamental conflict between Life and Knowledge. One problem grows out of the fact that there are good reasons for a different understanding of the overall plot of the narrative, to which I shall turn in a moment. The other has to do with Stordalen’s analysis of Gen 3:22. In order to sustain his interpretation, Stordalen feels obliged to assume a rather special understanding of this verse. The Hebrew runs: 34. Stordalen 2000: 221–33 and 476. 35. Stordalen 2000: 229–33 and 240–49. 36. See Stordalen 2000: 465–74, esp. pp. 466 and 473. Stordalen expresses himself very cautiously.

20

Chapter 2

/dy; jl"v‘yiAˆP< { hT:["w] .µl: [øl} yj"w; lk"a:w] µyYij"h" ≈[EmE µG' jq' l:w] wéºattâ pen-yisla˙ yadô wélaqa˙ gam me ºeß ha˙ayyîm wé ªakal wa˙ay lé ºolam.

The anacoluthic construction used here is usually understood as meaning: and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever— (rsv; my emphasis)

Stordalen suggests the following translation: lest he keep stretching out his hand, and take even from the Tree of Life, and eat, and live forever. (p. 230; my emphasis)

The conjunction pen is taken to mean “lest [someone continue to do what they are already doing].” 37 Here Stordalen polemicizes against James Barr, who argued that 3:22b “must mean that the fruit of the tree of life had not been previously eaten.” 38 Though Stordalen’s interpretation has a long pedigree (as he points out, it was suggested by Obbink in 1928), 39 this interpretation has been refuted by Humbert. Humbert’s main point is that the word gam ‘also’ must imply that they had not eaten of the tree of life before. 40 James Barr agrees with this, adding that the phrase “put out his hand and do something” is an inchoative expression and cannot easily mean “to continue to do what he has been doing all along.” The phrase that states the reason for the expulsion thus “excludes the idea that they had been eating of the tree of life from the beginning.” 41 In other words, the traditional understanding of the crucial verse is still valid. Stordalen’s plot-segment analysis builds on a number of accurate observations and is valuable in several respects. As one can see, however, I find it difficult to follow him in every regard. I am thus skeptical 37. Stordalen 2000: 231. 38. Barr 1993: 58. 39. Obbink 1928: 106. Obbink refers to Exod 1:9–10 and 1 Sam 13:19 in support of this. Stordalen adds 2 Sam 12:27–28. 40. Humbert 1940: 131–33. Was it this rejoinder to Obbink that gave Stordalen second thoughts and led him to say that “whether or not they have by 3:22 eaten from the Tree of Life is impossible to detect. At any rate, the new situation to be avoided is not the eating of the Tree of Life, but eating from the tree after having taken from the Tree of Knowledge” (p. 231, emphasis in the original)? Even so, his translation of 3:22 and his understanding of the fundamental conflict of the text fail to convince me. 41. Barr 1993: 58 and 135 n. 2.

A Narratological Analysis of the Eden Narrative

21

of his idea of a fundamental conflict between life and wisdom. Besides, there is more to be said about the overall story line, the overall plot.

3. The Overall Plot Peter Brooks, a comparative literature scholar, has pointed out that [n]arrative is one of the large categories or systems of understanding that we use in our negotiations with reality, specifically, in the case of narrative, with the problem of temporality: man’s timeboundedness, his consciousness of existence within the limits of mortality. And plot is the principal ordering force of those meanings that we try to wrest from human temporality. 42

To attain a proper grasp of the plot is thus of importance to the present enterprise. The ensuing analysis of the plot of the Eden Narrative will confirm a certain amount of traditional wisdom from previous scholarship; at the same time, it will outline and highlight certain important features that have been overlooked. The fact that the body of the narrative focuses on the tree of knowledge should not cause us to overlook the fact that the tree of life is there too, right from the beginning, and that this tree reappears at the very end. Though seemingly disappearing from the scene, the tree of life has a very important function in the narrative. Indeed, in this plot the two trees are suggestive of what is to follow. 43 The two trees represent divine prerogatives and stand for the chief divine qualities. One stands for Life, in the sense of immortality, the other for Knowledge. “Thus, the question is raised whether the Creator will allow the creature to attain equal status.” 44 Having created man from dust, as an “earth creature” (ªadam), God prepares a garden and has a number of trees grow there, including two special trees. Though this is often blurred in translation, there is a particular type of stress on “both”–“and” in 2:9: “both the tree of life in the midst of the garden and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.” 45 We note that the expression “in the midst of the garden” is directly linked to one of the trees only—namely, the tree of life. Does the position indicated apply only to this tree or to both of them? In the first monograph to be published on the phenomenon of “split 42. Brooks 1992: xi; see also p. 22. 43. White 1991: 119. 44. White 1991: 119. 45. Note the disjunctive function of the zaqeph qaton: t["D£ 'h" ≈[EØ w] ˆG:±h" Ë/t∞B} µ~yYij"h ô " ≈[E•w] [rê ;w; b/fì .

22

Chapter 2

coordination” in the Hebrew Bible, Andreas Michel devoted a whole chapter to Gen 2:9, arguing that this verse is indeed an excellent example of this syntactic feature. 46 Two elements of the clause are separated by an intervening element. In the present case the two objects, the tree of life and the tree of knowledge, are separated by a locative expression (“in the midst”). In cases of this sort, the “inserted” element applies to both. The location indicated (“in the midst . . .”) therefore applies to both trees. Michel’s arguments seem convincing. His investigation demonstrates that what we have in Gen 2:9 is a phenomenon of the Hebrew language system and that literary “surgery,” though possible, is by no means necessary. It thus transpires that the woman does not make a formal “mistake” when she refers to the tree of knowledge as being “in the midst of the garden” later in the text (3:3). Michel’s observation is important. Another significant observation is that there are thus two trees but only one prohibition: And the Lord God commanded the man, “You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die.” (Gen 2:16–17)

Thus the nrsv. This rendering calls for a few comments. The Hebrew of the last line is worth noticing: kî béyôm ªåkolka mimmennû môt tamût. Two things should be noted here. First, the expression béyôm ‘on the day that . . .’ is not necessarily temporal. Here, and in some other instances as well, it carries more of a conditional sense. 47 The exact point of time for death is not the issue. Second, the present case differs from the common Hophal constructions well known from legal contexts in that here we have the verb in the Qal. In conditional constructions, this refers to a threat of death, not to the formal proclamation of a death sentence. 48 This means that 2:17 is not to be understood in forensic terms as a sentence to be executed on the very day of the eating of the forbid46. A. Michel 1997: 1–22. Michel’s German term is gespaltene Koordination. The type of syntactic feature used in Gen 2:9, with split direct objects, has many other examples in the Hebrew Bible and is treated in a special chapter (pp. 171–306). A case especially similar to Gen 2:9 is Exod 24:4: wayyiben mizbea˙ ta˙at hahar ûsétêm ºe¶reh maßßebâ ‘He . . . built an altar at the foot of the mountain, and set up twelve pillars’. Here, too, the location applies to both. 47. Thus Humbert 1940: 140, referring also to Exod 10:28; Num 30:6, 9, 13; 1 Kgs 2:37, 42; and Ruth 4:5. See also Illman 1979: 104–5. 48. Illman 1979: 104–5; on the Hophal formula, pp. 119–27.

A Narratological Analysis of the Eden Narrative

23

den fruit. I suggest translating: “for if you eat of it you shall certainly die.” 49 With the prohibition of one of the two trees (2:17), God confronts man with a test, an important but surprisingly neglected feature of the text. 50 The Hebrew text of the Eden Narrative does not use the specific term for testing (Hebrew nsh in the Piel). One might therefore hesitate to speak of a test in the present text. The important thing, however, is not whether we have the precise terminology but whether the plot confronts us with what may be denoted as a test, and I believe this is precisely the case. God arranges an experiment with the first humans: he proclaims his divine commandment in the form of a prohibition, and then he waits to see whether the two humans will obey or not. In my next chapter, in which I discuss the theme of the narrative, I will dig deeper and adduce similar texts in the Hebrew Bible that contribute to putting this characteristic of a test in relief. Right here, I limit my perspective to the plot of the Eden Narrative. In presenting a divine test for the first humans, the narrator creates suspense, and he does so in two different ways. First, the test entails the raising of suspense around the question “to eat or not to eat,” which may be circumscribed as “to obey the divine commandment or not to obey.” This suspense reaches its climax in 3:6, which records the act of disobedience just carried out: “and she ate . . . and he ate.” The plot ascends to 3:6 and then turns to descend. The plot of the Eden Narrative nicely illustrates Gustav Freytag’s well-known pyramid graph, used to describe the structure of a tragedy. 51 Second, the reader understands that the outcome of the test may have certain consequences for man’s access to the other tree, the tree of life, although this tree is not mentioned at all in what happens between 2:9 and 3:22. 49. I disagree with Moberly (1988: 4, 15) and Otto (1996: 181 n. 79) here, who both understand Gen 2:17 in the light of death sentences in the Hophal. Wenham (1987: 67) got it right. 50. The understanding of the Eden Narrative as dealing with a divine test does not seem to play any role in the history of exegesis. Begrich (1932: 114) makes an offhand remark, saying that there is a Gehorsamsprobe, a test of obedience. A “prohibition test” is used by Stordalen (2000: 226–27, 476–77) as one of his five “plot segments” but otherwise plays no role in his interpretation, which instead focuses on the surmised conflict between “Life” and “Knowledge” (pp. 229–33), on which see my discussion above (§2.3.2, p. 18). I have consulted some knowledgeable colleagues about the situation in the writings of the Church Fathers. No one has been able to find any references to a divine test taking place in Genesis 2–3. 51. Freytag 1894; see also Prince 2003: 36.

24

Chapter 2

3:6 peripeteia Disobedience “and she ate” “and he ate” 2:16–17 suspense Commandment To eat or not to eat? To obey or not to obey?

3:18–19 new suspense Consequences?

Fig. 1. The dramatic line of the plot moves upward, from the divine commandment in 2:16–17 to the peripeteia in the act of disobedience in 3:6, and then assumes a downward direction.

The central scene (2:25–3:7) contains a number of features worth noticing. As Phyllis Trible points out: “The serpent and the woman discuss theology. They talk about God” but “only using the general appellative God, they establish that distance which characterizes objectivity and invites disobedience.” 52 The serpent, however, is hardly a respectable theologian. He distorts and misrepresents the divine commandment. A factor we should not overlook is the surprising “mistake” that the woman makes when she speaks of the divine commandment as having to do with “the tree in the midst of the garden” (3:3), although she is obviously referring to the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. 53 In 2:9, the tree “in the midst” is the tree of life. I shall revert to the “mistake” in 3:3 below, at the end of the present chapter. Another important factor is that, in the words of the serpent, the act of eating of the forbidden fruit would make the man and the woman “like the gods” (3:5). 54 The expression hints at knowledge as a divine prerogative: for God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like the gods, knowing good and evil. (3:5; my translation) 52. Trible 1985: 109. 53. It was noticed, however, by Schmid 2002: 31–32. Note my quotation marks around “mistake.” See above about split coordination. 54. With Garr (2003: 17–92), I take the formulations here and in Gen 1:26, 6:1– 4, and 11:7 to refer to a plurality in the divine world.

A Narratological Analysis of the Eden Narrative

25

In 3:22, both knowledge and immortal life seem to be divine prerogatives: Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”— (3:22; rsv)

These expressions in 3:5 and 3:22 point to the existence of a borderline, a sort of demarcation, between the divine world and the human—a border that God does not want the humans to pass. Passing this boundary is “transgression” in the deepest sense of the word. Though none of the Hebrew words for “sin” appears in the text, the notion is very much present. After the peripeteia has been reached in 3:6, when the human couple eats of the forbidden fruit, there is new suspense in the text: What will be the consequences of their disobedience? To begin with, God conducts a hearing. The order of the interrogation is: the man— the woman—the serpent. This order is reversed in the pronouncement of sentences in vv. 14–19. We thus have an inclusio with the serpent in the middle:

Hearing: man —— woman —— serpent Sentences: serpent —— woman —— man Fig. 2. The hearing and the sentences form an inclusio.

The phrase ‘where are you?’ (ªayyekkâ) conforms with the rhetorical use of ªayyê in “making an urgent appeal to someone’s responsibility.” 55 In the three sentencing pronouncements, we note the two curses, one on the serpent, the other on the earth. Man and woman are not under a divine curse; however, they are subject to penalties. In 3:19, we find an expression that is part of the very backbone of the plot, to the effect that man is made from dust and will revert to dust:

T:j}Q;lU hN;M